interesting, shimrod, that you are"... getting cheesed off with all this religious nonsense"
1, no one makes you read or post on the subject.
2, it was not a creationist that started this or other recent posts on the subject
3 ".....religious faith is all to do with having a fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for which there is no evidence"   if that is true, then we have something in common since you believe in things fervently without evidence.

stu, this is from the concise encyclopedia   "..because the evidence for such relationships is almost always incomplete, most judgments of phylogenicity are based on indirect evidence and cautious speculation"
that don't quite read as cut and dried but for the fine detail imo.
so it seems to me that you may place organisms in a progression as though one leads to another, but that is only because other alternative explanation is a priori discounted.
you can , of course, resort to claiming that creation is uneducated nonsense, but seems to me that common design and variation within kinds explanation is just as valid, if not more so, than phylogenetic ideas. what is so encouraging to me is that evolutionist believers themselves can be quoted admitting that it is far from cut and dried.
oh...and I can quote Darwin as one of them, in his "searing honesty"!
but you are quite right about the wrong word....point to you!